New insights into classification and evolution of the Lecanoromycetes (Pezizomycotina, Ascomycota) from phylogenetic analyses of three ribosomal RNA- and two protein-coding genes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Lecanoromycetes includes most of the lichen-forming fungal species (> 13500) and is therefore one of the most diverse class of all Fungi in terms of phenotypic complexity. We report phylogenetic relationships within the Lecanoromycetes resulting from Bayesian and maximum likelihood analyses with complementary posterior probabilities and bootstrap support values based on three combined multilocus datasets using a supermatrix approach. Nine of 10 orders and 43 of 64 families currently recognized in Eriksson's classification of the Lecanoromycetes (Outline of Ascomycota--2006 Myconet 12:1-82) were represented in this sampling. Our analyses strongly support the Acarosporomycetidae and Ostropomycetidae as monophyletic, whereas the delimitation of the largest subclass, the Lecanoromycetidae, remains uncertain. Independent of future delimitation of the Lecanoromycetidae, the Rhizocarpaceae and Umbilicariaceae should be elevated to the ordinal level. This study shows that recent classifications include several nonmonophyletic taxa at different ranks that need to be recircumscribed. Our phylogenies confirm that ascus morphology cannot be applied consistently to shape the classification of lichen-forming fungi. The increasing amount of missing data associated with the progressive addition of taxa resulted in some cases in the expected loss of support, but we also observed an improvement in statistical support for many internodes. We conclude that a phylogenetic synthesis for a chosen taxonomic group should include a comprehensive assessment of phylogenetic confidence based on multiple estimates using different methods and on a progressive taxon sampling with an increasing number of taxa, even if it involves an increasing amount of missing data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".